It didn't even work for Jefferson, though I applaud the idea.
NATO is a Cold War Relic
- Thread starter hvilleherb
- Start date
It didn't even work for Jefferson, though I applaud the idea.
Our oil is in this country, Dopey.
Insane. Putin can't go after the Baltics (etc.) You are living a John McCain war fantasy.
Georgia and Ukraine are much different animals then the "old Soviet Union" hegemon.
These are border states, and Crimea has historically been Russian
Post Cold War NATO expansion into the former Soviet was a GARGANTUAN blunder !!
It feeds precisely into Kremlin fear-mongering. It is used to justify Russian actions such as that in Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria.
Next, NATO is a mutual defense pact (see Art. 5). So we admitted Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. GET SERIOUS !! How many here sincerely believe if the U.S. is attacked, that what will make the difference about whether the U.S. can preserve its sovereignty is:
With the dozens of other NATO nations alone, but without Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary we could not preserve our sovereignty, but
with Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary added to the NATO complement, we have a chance to preserve our Constitution.
COCKY POP !!
NATO expansion into the former Soviet was military aggression pure and simple. And I suspect Russia has been more tolerant of it than the U.S. would have been if the roles were reversed.
Ref:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/nato-expansion-the-source-russias-anger-10344
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Uhhh worked great in WW1. The fuck you think happened?
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Not our land, not our problem.
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
your kind will be a relic shortly, Vladimir
Wow.
The US is not dependent upon NATO for security.
What an idiotic statement.
The US derives it's security from the unenrolled militia, 300 million plus guns in civilian hands.
Too bad you don't understand this simple fact.
We concur 100%!
BUT !!
It's not my statement. It's YOURS !!
My statement was that adding Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary to NATO won't make the difference between whether the U.S. can preserve our sovereignty, or not.
In fact, quite the contrary. Post Cold War NATO expansion has only INcreased the risk to the United States, who has been doing the heavy lifting for NATO not just for years, not just for decades, not just since the previous millennium, but for generations !!
Now that!!
my cyber-freng, is an "idiotic statement" !!
You expound with the ignorance and zeal of a zealot*.
But your assertion is bogus on many levels:
- paramilitary
- strategic
- legal
- historic.
Militiamen may have been useful to General Washington during the Revolution.
It's a new millennium.
Warfare has fundamentally changed.
Our rate of fire has increased from two rounds per minute to 20 rnd in 2.2 seconds, or so (that's the number we got when we emptied a 20 round mag. out of an M-16-A1 at the range).
Bonus trivia question for you R #28:
By law, to what U.S. military commander do militiamen report, and take orders from?
* "In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), U.S. president. Letter, 24 Nov. 1808, to his grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph
You call into doubt your understanding of history, AND that is the very reason for my signature line.
Sorry you are so self deluded.
- Not one quotation of my posted words.
- Not one logical refutation.
- Not one factual correction.
Your post R #30 is pure imperious twaddle, name-calling.
By quoting Founder Thomas Jefferson, commenting on zealots like you?
Perhaps R #30, you may wish to post a substantive comment in this forum.
Please pardon me if I don't hold my breath.
The Baltic countries are "border" states every bit as much as Georgia, and they are of more strategic value that Georgia.
I do not think Putin would invade the Baltics, but Putin will not be around forever. There is a strong and pervasive righwing nationalist constituency within Russia, and they are very much akin to righting Trump supporters -- aka, nationalists, proto-fascist, war mongers, with strong affinity for Russian hegemony in its sphere of influence. The unequivocal guarantees of an anonymous message board poster that the Lithuanians have nothing to fear - now or ever - simply can be dismissed as the unsubstantiated assertions of the uninformed.
Georgia is a culturally and historically distinct people, and your attempt to portray them as quasi-subjects of the Kremlin does not pass the laugh text.
Ukraine can arguably be said to culturally, linguistically, and historically an East Slavic variant of the Russian republic, bearing common roots in the Rus Varangians ancestors. Does that give Russia the right to invade the sovereign territory of Ukraine, as you suggest? Nope. Their invasion of Crimea was just as illegal and unethical as our invasion of Iraq.
I think the eastward NATO expansion is open to debate, and I do not necessarily think we have to admit all former republics of the Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact. But I also do not believe in telling other countries what to do. NATO is the most successful and effective military alliance in human history, and it is perfectly understandable why duly elected governments of democratic nations would want to join. That said, we need to be very deliberative in balancing Polish motives, Ukrainian motives, Estonian motives against our interests and the broader interests of NATO. We cannot have countries who just want us to defend their interests. They have to be willing to contribute to the NATO's missions, not only security, but peacekeeping and humanitarian. The amount of deliberation and debate that goes into those kinds of decisions simply cannot be trusted to a pro-Kremlin message board poster.
There is also something to be said for collective security. Without NATO, there well may be 40 or 50 nuclear states on the planet - exponentially increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation or confrontation. The fact that the U.S. nuclear arsenal, in conjunction with the French and British nuke forces, are used for the collective security of the world's liberal democratic nations had had more than a minor impact in preventing nuclear proliferation at the nation-state scale.
The slogan about NATO being a cold war relict is a slogan, a talking point that has no basis in reality. Modern NATO is an important entity for international stability and security. Counter-terrorism, anti-piracy, humanitarian relief, peace-keeping are all on the agenda for the modern NATO. Worth remembering is that NATO provided the United States assistance after 9/11 and after hurricane Katrina
On balance, NATO has been a stabilizing force for the world, and has served North American and western European interests in immeasurable ways. The fact that nations across Europe have always scrambled, begged, and advocated for membership is a crystal clear testament to the fact that NATO is the most successful political and military alliance in all of human history.
Last edited:
That's fine.
But this source: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/nato-expansion-the-source-russias-anger-10344
says NATO didn't solicit Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, but that they came to NATO requesting membership.
It's not a binary.
The obvious 3rd option is to explain that due to history, and current Russian aggressions, that this is not the time to expand NATO.
That rather than NATO saying "No.", NATO says, not now.
Can anyone here name anything short of starting a shooting war, or taking some other aggressive confrontational action, that would feed Kremlin war hawks more casus belli than NATO expanding progressively closer to Russia's sovereign border?
It's absolute madness ! And it's 100% not necessary. We WON the Cold War for god's sake! Grinding the loser's face in the mud is not going to improve the world.
The assumption there seems to be that the US will remain in NATO while others may withdraw.
But that was in the days of Truman, when America really was leader of the free world.
Who told you that?
Article 13: After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.
Did they envisage the USG giving "notice of denunciation" to itself?
And you don't, either, apparently.you started to thread the other day on this NATO contribution b******* and you were shown to be a stupid f*** and now here you are going at it again and you're being a stupid f*** again. Is your goal in life to just be a stupid f***
Nations want the security and they want the economic boost from joining NATO. Your post is a wall of text - I'm not going to answer it all - but what you consistently fail to realize is that what the west sees as "security" is a real threat to Russia.
The Baltics are not border states -I have no idea where you get that from. The idea of Putin marshaling forces into Finland or the Baltics is simply laughable.
He would be met with universal condemnation ( including China) and would immediately be pushed back,
and suffer severe losses . and why would Putin even want the Baltics?
It's not a Russian people and unlike the USSR Putin doesn't want hegemenoy.
He wants security, and he wants economic improvement.
If we hadn't have meddled in the Euromaidan and ensured a duly elected president was overthrown by the hijinks of McCain/Nuland -Putin would have kept the status quo in Crimea.
It wasn't until AFTER the 2014 revolution that Putin saw the need to annex Crimea (Sevatopol access).
same with Donbass- the Kyiv faction wanted to displace any Russian autonomy with alligence to Kyiv.
We constantly expand NATO ( we just did Montenego - Georgia wants in) -we constantly rev up the reasons
and we constantly meddle in European affairs. The we get all holy and righteous that Putin has to defend his border states from becoming a hostile NATO government.
Cut it out.
Putin has expanded all he is going to- forced to do so by our border meddling expansion.
If you want Russia to stop being belligerent, stop threatening it.
yes. and we used to partner with annual drills with Russian troops against terrorism ( training ).
That's all gone because of western hostility to Russia
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well it’s not like we need more proof to know he’s an idiot.
You’d have to be not to understand the far reaching consequences for disbanding NATO.